Femoral Component Revision Using an Extensively Hydroxyapatite-Coated Stem

Journal of Arthroplasty

Volumn 19, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 8-13

  Crawford, Charles H ^a   Malkani, Arthur L ^a,b   Incavo, Stephen J ^c   Morris, Hugh B ^d   Krupp, Ryan J ^b   Baker, Dale ^e  

^a University of Louisville School of Medicine   (United States)

^b Department of Orthopaedic Surgery ^*  (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT   (United States)

^d Winter Park Memorial Hospital   (United States)

^e JEWISH HOSPITAL   (United States)

Author keywords

Extensively coated; Femoral revision; Hydroxyapatite; Stress shielding

Indexed keywords

BIOMATERIAL; HYDROXYAPATITE;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; FEMALE; FEMORAL COMPONENT REVISION; FEMUR FRACTURE; FOLLOW UP; HARRIS HIP SCORE; HIP ARTHROPLASTY; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MECHANICAL STRESS; PREOPERATIVE EVALUATION; PROSTHESIS FAILURE; PROSTHESIS LOOSENING; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SCORING SYSTEM; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS;

EID: 1642499211     PISSN: 08835403     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0883-5403(03)00454-6     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Berry DJ, Harmsen WS, Ilstrup D, et al: Survivorship of uncemented proximally porous-coated femoral components in revision total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 319:178, 1995
2. Katz RP, Callaghan JJ, Sullivan PM, et al: Results of cemented femoral revision total hip arthroplasty using improved cementing techniques. Clin Orthop 319:178, 1995
3. Kavanagh BF, Ilstrup DM, Fitzgerald RH Jr: Revision total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg 67A:517, 1995
4. Malkani AL, Lewallen DG, Cabanella ME, et al: Femoral component revision using an uncemented, proximally coated, long stem prosthesis. J Arthroplasty 11:411, 1996
5. Mulliken BD, Rorabeck CH, Bourne RB: Uncemented revision total hip arthroplasty: a 4-to-6 year review. Clin Orthop 325:156, 1996
6. Mulroy WF, Harris WH: Revision total hip arthroplasty with use of so-called second-generation cementing techniques for aseptic loosening of the femoral component: a fifteen-year-average follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg 78A:325, 1996
7. Pellicci PM, Wilson PD Jr, Sledge CB, et al: Long-term results of revision total hip replacement. A follow-up report. J Bone Joint Surg 67:513, 1985
8. Woolson ST, Delaney TJ: Failure of proximally porous-coated femoral prosthesis in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 10:S22, 1995
9. Engh CA, Massin P, Suthers KE: Roentgenographic assessment of the biologic fixation of porous-surfaced femoral components. Clin Orthop 257:107, 1990
10. Krishnamurthy AB, MacDonald SJ, Paprosky WG: 5- to 13-year follow-up study on cementless femoral components in revision surgery. J Arthroplasty 12: 839, 1997
11. Lawrence JM, Engh CA, Macalino GE: Revision total hip arthroplasty: long-term results without cement. Orthop Clin North Am 24:635, 1993
12. Moreland JR, Bernstein ML: Femoral revision hip arthroplasty with uncemented, porous-coated stems. Clin Orthop 319:141, 1995
13. Moreland JR, Moreno MA: Cementless femoral revision arthroplasty of the hip: minimum 5 years followup. Clin Orthop 393:194, 2001
14. Paprosky WG, Greidanus NV, Antoniou J: Minimum 10-year-results of extensively porous-coated stems in revision arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 369:230, 1999
15. Mahomed NN, Arndt DC, McGrory BJ, et al: The Harris hip score: comparison of patient self-report with surgeon assessment. J Arthroplasty 16:575, 2001
16. Soderman P, Malchau H: Is the Harris hip score system useful to study the outcome of total hip replacement? Clin Orthop 384:189, 2001
17. Duncan CP, Masri BA: Fractures of the femur after hip replacement. Instr Course Lect 44:293, 1995
18. Brady OH, Garbuz DS, Masri BA, et al: The reliability and validity of the Vancouver classification of femoral fractures after hip replacement. J Arthroplasty 15(1):59, 2000
19. Dohmae Y, Bechtold JE, Sherman RE, et al: Reduction in cement-bone interface shear strength between primary and revision hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 236:214, 1988
20. Coathup MJ, Blunn GW, Flynn N, et al: A comparison of bone remodeling around hydroxyapatite-coated, porous-coated and grit-blasted hip replacements retrieved at post-mortem. J Bone Joint Surg Br 83B(1):118, 2001
21. Bauer TW, Geesink RCT, Zimmerman R, et al: Hydroxyapatite-coated femoral stems: histological analysis of components retrieved at autopsy. J Bone Joint Surg Am 73A:1439, 1991
22. Furlong R: Six years use of the unmodified furlong hydroxyapatite ceramic coated total hip replacement. Acta Orthop Belg 59:323, 1993
23. Hardy DCR, Frayssinet P, Guilhem A, et al: Bonding of hydroxyapatite-coated femoral prostheses: histopathology of specimens from four cases. J Bone Joint Surg Br 73B:732, 1991
24. Karrholm J, Malchau H, Snorrason F, et al: Micromotion of femoral stems in total hip arthroplasty: a randomized study of cemented, hydroxyapatite-coated and porous-coated stems with roentgen stereophotogrammetric analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 76A:1692, 1994
25. Soballe K, Gotfredsen K, Brockstedt-Rasmussen H, et al: Histologic analysis of a retrieved hydroxyapatite coated femoral prosthesis. Clin Orthop 272:255, 1991
26. Engh CA Jr, McAuley JP, Sychterz CJ, et al: The accuracy and reproducibility of radiographic assessment of stress shielding: a postmortem analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 82A:1414, 2000